Wiki 24:Articles for deletion
This is a place where you can nominate articles for deletion. Place the page link and your reason for the nomination at the top of the list. The link will be removed once the article has been deleted. Articles will remain up for discussion for about a month before the thread is removed. An archive of rejected article deletions is also available. If content is deleted, there may be a leftover talk page; such discussions can be archived here with their original histories preserved. New pages that are obvious examples of spam, vandalism, and the like, should be reported on the Vandal alert project page instead. Nominated content File:People%27s_Choice_Magazine_Ad_for_Marci_Michelle_with_Jon_Cassar_foreword.jpg - this isn't a screenshot or behind the scenes pic, it's rather an advert for Marci Michelle which happens to quote a member of the 24 crew on it. I don't see how this qualifies under the image policy--Acer4666 (talk) 00:04, October 25, 2012 (UTC) :Delete please. It makes no sense at all. --Station7 (talk) 05:36, October 25, 2012 (UTC) File:The-Pitch.jpg - this picture has nothing to do with 24, so in accordance with the image policy I'd like to nominate it for deletion. I post here because it's been around for ages - any objections?--Acer4666 (talk) 23:23, October 23, 2012 (UTC) :No objections at all. --Station7 (talk) 05:27, October 24, 2012 (UTC) Treason - Although I have problems with a number of the "common noun" encyclopedia entries we have here, this one has bothered me for a long time, and much more than the others. Yeah, Brad Hammond said the word "treason" in reference to Tony once, and yeah I'm sure the word was spoken by Jack a few times, but it's a common English noun. Perhaps 95% of the antagonists on the show can be construed as treasonous, and there's no need for an article listing them all with haggard little bullet-points. To me it just seems so pointless and so broad, and I will assert that the project will suffer not at all if it is deleted. 04:35, August 3, 2012 (UTC) :I think this should be kept, as long as it's trimmed down to only the times someone's actions were explicitly stated to be treasonous.--Acer4666 (talk) 23:23, October 23, 2012 (UTC) Talk:Edward Conna - although his name is on imdb for a couple of early Day 8 episodes, imdb is often wrong and until we have verified that he's in the episodes we have nothing to put on this article. It can always be restored if/when we verify his involvement on the show--Acer4666 (talk) 22:01, June 19, 2012 (UTC) : Sounds good to me, too. The creator is encouraged to put his work-in-progress in a user-space page in the interim of course. 04:15, June 20, 2012 (UTC) :: I've moved it to a talk namespace, to preserve the discussion for if the guy is found. If we don't hear anything about him being in the show, I'll delete the talk page/move it again accordingly--Acer4666 (talk) 08:07, June 20, 2012 (UTC) P90 - as far as I know, there isn't an iu reference to this term - if one is found, the article can always be ressurected--Acer4666 (talk) 21:53, December 1, 2011 (UTC) : If you're confident, feel free to toss it. 04:54, December 15, 2011 (UTC) :Just a question, since I don't dabble that much on those weapons/guns articles. Is it necessary for the weapon to be referenced by name? Isn't it enough if it's seen? I mean, there are a lot of articles here on different guns and rifles and I doubt any of them has been referenced by name. If it's enough with it being seen, the article on P90 mentions the instance when it is allegedly seen. Thief12 20:44, December 15, 2011 (UTC) ::I forgot about this nomination so I'm bumping it up to the top - to answer Thief's question, a weapon does indeed need to be referenced by name in the show, or a book, to have an article. I'm fairly sure the other weapon articles do fit this criteria, except for AA-12 Shotgun which I can't find mention of. I'd like to re-suggest P90 for deletion, along with AA-12, as the information can go on Weapons on 24/Season 7.--Acer4666 (talk) 14:19, April 4, 2012 (UTC) :::Both now deleted--Acer4666 (talk) 22:50, April 8, 2012 (UTC) "Events occur in real time" title card - I don't think an article for one small part of the title sequence that occasionally appeared is necessary. At the moment it is just a little paragraph and a large sparse appearance template which I think would fit much better as a section of the real time article and a simple list of episodes instead of the appearances template. I propose moving the information to the real time article--Acer4666 (talk) 17:44, March 28, 2012 (UTC) :No objections; done--Acer4666 (talk) 14:19, April 4, 2012 (UTC) File:S1e13f1.jpg or File:JackAiming.jpg - Yet another instance of almost identical images. The only "advantage" I see for the latter is that Jack has his gun drawn out. Thief12 23:50, January 18, 2012 (UTC) : Generally we defer to the older one, but in this case the newer one does happen to be clearer. My opinion is we delete the old one and then move the new one to that file name (updating the categories of course). 05:48, January 19, 2012 (UTC) Not sure what to think about this set: * File:CofellDead.jpg * File:CofellAttack.jpg * File:Jack-punches-cofell.jpg * File:Tedcofellkill.JPG I think an argument could be made for each, but I don't think so many pictures for a single event/scene are necessary. Thief12 19:24, January 14, 2012 (UTC) :The last 2 pictures are featured on a page, so I think it's the best if they weren't deleted. The first 2 is the best if they are gone, becvause they aren't on a page. --Station7 20:25, January 14, 2012 (UTC) :: Quality is probably the best criteria here. Tedcofellkill.JPG is the blurriest, let's replace it with File:Jack-punches-cofell.jpg. File:CofellAttack.jpg does not demonstrate anything useful, I don't see any reason to keep. I suppose File:CofellDead.jpg could be the one that remains for the user content. (If nobody contests this, and if another admin implements this before I do, please notify BauerPhillip24 since he is the uploader of two of these.) 05:48, January 19, 2012 (UTC) :Done--Acer4666 (talk) 22:54, April 25, 2012 (UTC) File:CTUShadowanimal.jpg or File:S1e19f2.jpg - Again, duplicate pictures. But I'm putting it here for consensus since one is bigger than the other. I do think the bigger one is blurrier. Looks like a resized image. Thief12 19:21, January 14, 2012 (UTC) ::You can kill File:CTUShadowanimal.jpg.Sorry.--BauerPhillip24 13:42, January 15, 2012 (UTC) File:TACVan.jpg or File:BauerCTUSWAT-ep10.jpg - Delete either. They're practically the same. I know I can do it, but wanted to bring it here for some "consensus". Thief12 18:32, December 31, 2011 (UTC) :I'd say get rid of the first, keep the second cos it's larger and has an (alleged) episode where it came from. However, the names of files from imfdb can't be trusted for episodes, as they make mistakes all over the place. Dunno if it's possible to verify.--Acer4666 (talk) 18:58, December 31, 2011 (UTC) ::I'm pretty sure the episode is correct, cause it's the same when I took this picture. Thief12 19:24, December 31, 2011 (UTC) ::Yeah, I'd get rid of the frst one.Sorry about that--BauerPhillip24 20:24, December 31, 2011 (UTC) ::Hey, sorry, did a switcheroo, you can just delete File:Season8Ep10Part2.jpg, which is a production photo anyway. I had to replace it with File:TACVan.jpg.--BauerPhillip24 02:40, January 13, 2012 (UTC) ::: There is no reason to keep both File:TACVan.jpg and File:8x10_Jack_Team.jpg since they are from pretty much the exact same moment. The 8x10_Jack_Team version is not only the original established one, but it's certainly brighter and more clear. Any opposition to keeping that one? 06:59, January 13, 2012 (UTC) ::::Agreed - keep the established one, and delete TACVan, as they're the same but one is of poorer quality--Acer4666 (talk) 13:59, January 13, 2012 (UTC) :::No problem, go ahead.--BauerPhillip24 15:11, January 14, 2012 (UTC) Images: * File:7x09.jpg - Recently a user uploaded a version which I think is superior: File:Season7Ep9.jpg. You can see Jack better in the newer one. I am proposing the idea on that episode guide's Talk page to conform to the main image policy. * File:TACteam_five.jpg - Only thing recognizably discernible in this image is the firearm. I don't think it warrants inclusion on Nina's page; you can barely see her head. * File:NinaCaptured.jpg - This image showcases a random CTU guy. Jack is cut off and once more Nina isn't usefully discernible. * File:CustomsEp6.jpg - This one is really just an excuse to get a picture of that gun on the wiki. * File:Season2_2-3pmPart2.jpg - Can't see this one on my handheld browsers, it's too dark; the good news is that the user who uploaded has put a superior alternative, which can used instead: File:Season2_2-3pm.jpg. No need for this darker one. 04:54, December 15, 2011 (UTC) ::I think those are all part of the images BauerPhillip kept talking about from the IMFDB, which he uploaded recently. Since they come from a wiki focused on firearms and guns, they aren't focused on characters. I think they are best suited for articles about guns and such and not much else. Thief12 20:44, December 15, 2011 (UTC) :::Agree with Thief. Only, I'm not sure if we could use all the images. --Station7 21:27, December 15, 2011 (UTC) :: Okay nevermind the first one, it stays. The replacement I proposed came from the Previously sequence of the next episode. That particular scene wasn't even used in 7x9. 08:56, December 20, 2011 (UTC) Category:Moles - After thinking about it for a moment, a huge majority of antagonists are "moles" on this show. The only ones who don't fit the usual definition of that word are random people like Gary Matheson, Peel, and Stan Miller. Every season has government moles (think about all those involved in the Season 7 conspiracy). Almost anyone who goes about with an alternate identity for the purpose of deception is a mole. Even Jack Bauer. As such, I no longer believe this to be a functionally useful category. 07:02, November 20, 2011 (UTC) :Agree with the deletion. --Station7 10:18, November 20, 2011 (UTC) :I disagree. I think "mole" clearly distinguishes someone who is pretending to be something else, while having other intentions. It separates people like Brian Gedge, Nina Myers, or Dana Walsh, from more upfront antagonists like Benjamin Juma, Samir Mehran, Andre Drazen, etc. Thief12 14:00, November 20, 2011 (UTC) ::I see it as an oou category for people who are presented to the audience as a good guy, and then in a storyline twist is revealed to be a bad guy. As such, some people in the category would have to go, but I think it's a useful category as that thing (those sorts of twists is what 24 is known for, and collect together the people who that happens to is noteworthy imo)--Acer4666 (talk) 02:23, November 21, 2011 (UTC) With Acer's oou definition of the term, the category begins to make sense. It would exclude Alexis however since he was never seen by the audience as anything but an antagonist. Right? 21:45, November 21, 2011 (UTC) : Hmm it's really bothering me that guys like Alexis and Ryan Burnett can't be added to this category under those criteria, because they were first seen as antagonists and then revealed to be moles. What can we do about this? Also what about people like Eddie Grant and Ostroff who became moles on-screen to do infiltration? 23:56, November 21, 2011 (UTC) :: It seems there may be a difference of opinion on the term "mole". I assumed it referred to someone who was employed (through the usual process) in an organisation, but was secretly working against that organisation. Alexis Drazen merely lied to sleep with someone (what guy hasn't done that ;) ) and get info, Eddie Grant and Ostroff merely dressed up as other people. To me, a "mole" is employed in a completely normal way, but is secretly working against the organisation on the sly. Seems like Mark Bishop might be the only grey area - haven't seen those scenes in a long time though. :: But coupled with the page mole, is the category necessary? Should they contain the same people?--Acer4666 (talk) 01:45, November 22, 2011 (UTC) ::: Good; we would have to add that clarification to the category and the page. And although I dislike articles about English-language common nouns such as mole, we probably should keep the article along with the categ too because I always ask myself the following question, as if from the mouth of someone who just learned... "There's a wiki for 24 out there? Huh, I bet they have a lot to say about afd." If the quote sounds reasonable, then we probably keep the article. We really should have at least a summary page about moles. ::: On these criteria Bishop is easily a mole (a legitimately-employed lobbyist). Should we be strict about when the revelation was made to the audience? I vote no: it seems arbitrary and would exclude backwards-revealed-moles like Burnett. 11:52, November 22, 2011 (UTC) :::: Oop - sorry forgot about this. No, I don't see any need to be strict about audience revelation - only that they are legitimately employed for the person they are working against, I think--Acer4666 (talk) 21:53, December 1, 2011 (UTC) Natalia K-524 gassing - I don't see a need for it, since it was a relatively short event, and all of the necessary details can go right onto the Natalia article itself. The fact that no one has adopted it to bring it to standard for so long seems to support the idea that nobody else feels it's necessary anyway. 19:27, November 1, 2011 (UTC) : Uncontested. 02:31, November 5, 2011 (UTC) All Episodes - this has been marked for deletion and the consensus seems to be that it would just be a duplication of the individual season pages. If there are no defending arguments from the original author or anyone else in the next few days I'll delete--Acer4666 17:52, July 7, 2011 (UTC) : The original editor seems to have abandoned it anyway (as happens in most cases with things like this), I say toss it too. 20:10, July 7, 2011 (UTC) :: I agree for the reasons given in the talk page. Thief12 03:48, July 8, 2011 (UTC) ::Sorry, forgot about this one, proudhug has now deleted--Acer4666 23:03, July 14, 2011 (UTC) File:TarinFaroush.jpg - This image is of quite poor quality and shows some bad cropping. I did figure out where it came from (this split screen) but I don't think it's useful as a standalone shot. 15:48, June 20, 2011 (UTC) : File:Tarin5-6.jpg - An unused image of Tarin as well. 15:53, June 20, 2011 (UTC) File:Chappelle.jpg - Nominated because I've replaced it as the main image for the character and on other articles. As of this post, it's unlinked and I don't think it's of good enough quality for use elsewhere. 08:09, June 18, 2011 (UTC) Orlani - This name appears on the door which the lumber store foreman says is his office to Marie Warner. I don't believe this is sufficient evidence to say it his the guy's name. A foreman is not a store owner, and might share the same office of the owner when the latter isn't around, etc. We really don't know what "Orlani" refers to, it could just be an old door that they recycled for use in that place. 05:23, February 15, 2011 (UTC) :This is a tough call because you don't seem to dispute the fact that Orlani is a name - meaning that for the sake of completeness it should have an article! We could change the article to just 'was a name seen on a door', to avoid any assumption, but then as you say it doesn't make for a good article and probably should be deleted! I'm not sure how I feel about it - I think it's the same sort of thing as Macys' Plaza, which it would be cool to discuss how relevant a proper noun has to be before it is included. So I'm sitting on the fence for this one for now I'm afraid haha!--Acer4666 10:42, February 15, 2011 (UTC) :: True! Let's wait for consensus over at Forum:2 small policy ideas and Talk:Macys' Plaza before proceeding with this. 07:21, February 17, 2011 (UTC) ::: The discussion came to a consensus and closed, so I wrote the conclusion over at Inclusion policy. 11:43, March 24, 2011 (UTC) Light machine guns - this could possibly be a grey area but I'd like to put forward an argument for this page's deletion. Although some could argue it is a technical term, and is used by Jack in the episode, it's like having an article for 'automatic weapons', it's so much part of common parlance that it doesn't really seem deserving of an article, for me anyway. The content on the article is so limited to the fact Jack once used the term, I think this article should be deleted in an effort to clean up the weapons content we have on the wiki.--Acer4666 16:12, February 8, 2011 (UTC) :Oh and add to this the fact that the technical term 'Light machine gun' is not what the people in the Drazen compound are carrying, indicating that Jack was not using the technical term, and merely saying they had guns that were light.--Acer4666 16:15, February 8, 2011 (UTC) ::Ok I have just realised that I have misunderstood what this article is about. I thought it was about the guards at the Gaines compound, realised that it is actually probs mentioned in Nightfall comic. Please excuse me while I retract my nomination for deletion and wipe the egg from my face--Acer4666 16:26, February 8, 2011 (UTC) Bishkeh - the real city is spelled Bishkek, I had a look at the episode and on Stenger's file it definitely says Bishkek. Not sure if 'bishkeh' comes up later in the episode, but I think in that case we would have a conflict and should probably go with the real-life spelling. Have moved the page, just need to delete the redirect--Acer4666 13:44, February 4, 2011 (UTC) : While I'm on, Krygyzstan as well - am I right to be nominating these spelling mistake redirects for deletion, or do we keep them in case someone does a mistake when searching for it?--Acer4666 13:50, February 4, 2011 (UTC) :: I generally always delete misspelled redirects when they are AFD'd. There is that bit about redirects in the policy, but that's not specific and probably pertinent to important characters and major places. I agree with you: it honestly looks bad when we have misspelled country names floating around in our content, even if it's just a minor mention. 17:27, February 4, 2011 (UTC) Category:Catholic schimsmatics - this category was a spelling mistake, so I've moved everything over to Category:Catholic schismatics. Whether or not it should be renamed 'catholic fundamentalists', or 'trinity antagonists', or is even worth keeping, is another question?--Acer4666 12:43, February 3, 2011 (UTC) : Was "schismatics" or fundamentalists used in the media? if both, which was more common? 17:27, February 4, 2011 (UTC) ::Sorry, I never saw this question when you first posted it. Unfortunately I never read the books or have them, so can't check? Hopefully someone else can offer the answer? It's becoming more apparent that, against my better judgement, I'm gonna probably have to buy some of these 24 books if I wanna do some decent editing on the wiki!--Acer4666 23:32, February 18, 2011 (UTC) : Nonsense! Only buy them if you want to read em. I'll probably never fully read those, but that's because I'm very judgmental of the writing style for Declassified, and primarily because I'm a purist: I don't consider the comics, books, playstation game, etc to be "real" stuff that happened in the 24 world. I still respect their place in this project, however. : Also, you don't need to own the books to verify this stuff, I was just being lazy when I asked instead of checking myself. I just took the moment and went to Amazon.com "Look Inside This Book" feature and found that "schismatic" is the iu term used most often, and it's specifically discussed in a spear-carrier conversation between 2 characters. "Fundamentalist" doesn't appear as often. 07:30, February 19, 2011 (UTC) File:John.jpg and File:George.jpg - None-24 related pictures--Acer4666 21:10, January 30, 2011 (UTC) : Done. And thanks for taking the time to explain to the user about the reverts! 06:21, January 31, 2011 (UTC) Military Intelligence 5 - A separate article was set up called MI5 Security Service, so I moved the info from the old MI5 page onto it to be consistent with MI6, I think the MI5 page should be deleted and redirects made for 'MI5' and 'Military Intelligence 5'--Acer4666 11:08, January 28, 2011 (UTC) :What on earth am I saying? This doesn't need to be deleted at all, I've just changed the pages into redirects. Silly me, sorry ignore this--Acer4666 12:18, January 28, 2011 (UTC) Template:Spoiler - Instead of making exceptions for spoilers, we should be proud of the anti-spoiler policy that has been in place at this wiki since its inception. Back when 24 aired, this project was a safe haven for everyone who wanted a spoiler-free experience. Now, if there is a movie coming out at some point, we hold to the same policy again. There isn't a need for this template. 06:46, December 24, 2010 (UTC) Robert Joseph- why is there a page about this guy? He doesn't even say a goddamn thing! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Makarov29 on 08:37, 2010 December 22 : Any character with a name can have an independent article. Carl and Adamson have articles, and they don't even appear at all, much less have lines. 13:15, December 22, 2010 (UTC) Death of main cast member - The relevant information can be added to Main cast. 15:14, December 3, 2010 (UTC) Unknown performers - I'm flabbergasted as to why Proudhug created this page. It is nothing more than the article form of a pre-existing category that has a few bits of added information, and the stuff is organized by day. I don't see the significance. 04:10, November 15, 2010 (UTC) Image nomination: # File:S8DVD.png - I tried uploading a transparent version of the cover but it ended up looking terrible against the dark background on here. Please delete. Drovethrughosts 15:43, October 30, 2010 (UTC) : No problemo. 03:48, November 1, 2010 (UTC) More image nominations: # File:24-Season-6-Nuclear-Explosion.jpg - It's a duplicate of File:Valenciamushroom2.jpg Thief12 03:42, August 19, 2010 (UTC) : Done! nice catch. 05:09, August 19, 2010 (UTC) Two image nominations: # File:PDVD 209.jpg - A less compelling and inferior version of File:S1e22f2.jpg. # File:S1e22f3.jpg - In my opinion this should be deleted and swapped out with File:Sherry1x22.jpg, see the fuller explanation over at Talk:Day 1 9:00pm-10:00pm. 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Purview of CTU - See its talk page. It's an oou disaster that pretty much can't be resurrected to fit with the other articles and is plagiarized to boot. Off with its head! 17:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Category:Images (Lonnie McRae) - This character doesn't meet all the requirements established on User talk:Wtl7 for having his own image category. We'd have to bend over backwards to get more images of him, which is silly. I say we delete this. 19:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC) : Uncontested... gone! 17:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC) File:7x24i.jpg - It is a near duplicate of File:7x24main.jpg. I say we keep the "main", since the afd image is the less useful of the two, and in the afd nom the only difference is that they're just standing around. 00:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC) : No objections; done. 19:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Template:24Trivia and Wiki 24:Trivia archive - These are the remnants of a repeatedly abortive effort to get random facts on the Main Page. Even I wanted this to work... for awhile. But nobody has ever tried to get this going, and to be honest, I wouldn't support any new attempts either (we wouldn't want to invite new users into thinking this project is a warehouse for random trivia). 06:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC) : Before we delete it lets make sure that all the trivia from that page is posted onto other, appropriate pages. There's some good stuff on there that I don't think is listed anywhere else. SignorSimon talk '' 06:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC) '''Template:MainPage R and Template:MainPage L': No longer used, unnecessary templates. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 06:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC) : Absolutely. I hate old junk like that, especially when it sneaks by me for so long. 11:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC) :: Also how about Template:MainPageL2? It's only linked in a test page and a forum discussion (I'll unlink it in the latter if it gets deleted). And, yeesh! Look at Template:MainPage. What an old bugger; it's as old as the hills. Looks like another page that is no longer useful. 06:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Characters by groups - regardless of the fact that this article was created within the first 24 hours of Wiki 24's creation, it's terribly arbitrary and impossible to keep up. --proudhug 20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC) : Agreed, to prepare I have removed it from the 2 encyclopedic areas where it was linked. However, it remains linked in a number of old discussions and archives. Should we blank and redirect it to the main page to prevent the ugly red-linking which would occur in those locations? 18:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC) :: Would simply bolding them, as we do on this page, be too much work? --proudhug 00:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC) : Nope :P but it is a kind of "historical revisionism" to go and alter those. It's acceptable though I guess, since we're not changing the content of someone's post, just de-activating a link. 01:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC) :: Yeah, I don't see a problem with it. There's definitely precedent. --proudhug 01:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC) ::: Annnnnd... it's dead. 18:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Image:Jack Bauer 5.JPG - User:Tony Almeida 24 uploaded this for his userspace. Despite the bad file extension and lack of use anywhere else on Wiki 24, it was not deleted because it appeared on his userpage. He has since uploaded another image, so now one of them needs to be deleted. Since this one already has a bad file extension, it needs to be deleted anyway. --proudhug 17:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC) : Seconded (& talk page too). 21:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC) :: Gone. --proudhug 23:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC) A few nominations: # Do we delete Image:MarieWarner1.jpg or Image:Marie.jpg? I say we delete the first one and swap out wherever necessary. # Any of the "Day Galleries" in Category:Galleries, at the moment I count ten in there. They are outmoded now. The place where they are currently linked - at the top of their Guides - can just be edited to link to the new categories. The only sacrifice is that we lose the blurbs but who cares? # Category:Images (CNB) - I recommend we replace this with a larger category, like "Images (news reports)" instead of something so specific. Then we can put them all together, no real need for a bunch of separate ones. # Category:Images (timer) - a good idea but in practice it's kind of just category clutter. Hasn't even been used for that very reason, it seems. 20:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC) :# Agreed. :# Agreed. :# Agreed. :# Agreed. :That was easy. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 21:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC) :: Ditto across the board. --proudhug 21:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC) ::: Very cool. I'll get to work on the galleries today and this will finally be finished. 12:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Okay, I just realized there actually may be a purpose for the galleries that I nominated for deletion in #2 above. Aside from the blurbs, which aren't that important, those galleries offer a chronological order for their images, and additionally they ensure that the images which are not linked on the Guide do not turn up in "Special:UnusedImages". I'm completely confused now as to whether they should co-exist with the new categs or still be deleted. Thoughts? 20:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC) :: Yeah, SignorSimon did bring this up when proposing the category galleries: "Could leave the current galleries so that images that are only on there are not orphaned, but otherwise make no more gallery pages from now on." Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to have them though, so the question is what to do with the orphaned images. I'd lean more towards deleting the ones that can't be moved to another page. Wiki 24 is meant to provide information on 24, and images are merely used to illustrate and emphasize the text. This site was created to be an encyclopedia, not a photo gallery. --proudhug 23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC) ::: I've been slowly getting to deleting these galleries, and also the images that appear nowhere else but on the galleries as well. It's taking awhile but I will have it completed soon. 18:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Image:Inauguration.jpg - I think it can be swapped out with the pre-existing Image:RedemptGuide6.jpg which is the better shot of the two. Also there is that random dude! 20:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC) : Haha, I can't decide if that guy makes the picture totally awesome or if it makes it totally suck! I won't be upset if you delete it, but I also won't be upset if you want to nominate it for Picture of the Year! Any chance of this guy getting on your forbidden characters list? --proudhug 03:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC) :: Rook, why the change of heart? On 22 January 2009 you added the image yourself to Edwin Ross' page and wrote "recyc good image" as the edit description! --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 07:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC) ::: Simon I probably thought I was adding the one I uploaded (sorry that sounds kind of dickish lol). They both represent two angles of the same thing, and I think RedemptGuide6 is clearer shot of the main characters. Also Proudhug, at this point its a matter of inevitability that this guy will be added to the Forbidden characters! Anyway let's keep it. 13:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC) : He's just so right there and more in focus than the main characters, it's hilarious! --proudhug 15:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC) :: Major lols. I want to save this convo, maybe over on the talk page for that image. 20:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Jack Bauer as a fugitive - It's showing no signs of improvement. I don't see much of a future for this one. Even if someone came along and adopted it, I suspect they would be prolonging the inevitable. 06:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC) : Agreed. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 08:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC) : Ditto. --proudhug 03:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Template:Main - Unlinked, incomplete, also I agree with Proudhug on the Template Talk page that it's additionally unusable. 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Template:Jack Bauer - Any plans for this? it's currently only transcluded onto 1 Main namespace page. If no one has any ideas, let's delete it since Simon has a template that functionally supersedes this. 21:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC) :: No attachment here. --Proudhug 17:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Wiki 24:Sandbox/MainPageNext - Completed sandbox content. Could be moved to user space if someone wants to archive the conversation. 13:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC) : I'm happy for a deletion. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 11:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Region encoding - I have no idea why this was even made in the first place. --Proudhug 19:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC) : Speedy delete. Looks like Dan made that back in '06. Silly seldom-seen Dan! Just realized: is it permissible to move the DVD region half of the page to the DVD article, and the other half to the BD article? Perhaps in a notes section, it might be a useful reference. 19:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC) :: I'd say no, since it's still not 24-related. A Wikipedia link would suffice, if you think the information is useful. --Proudhug 20:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ::: I unlinked it, feel free to make the kill. 13:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Benjamin Jumanji; vandalism redirect. -- Matthew R Dunn 10:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Guest characters - There are 3 problems with this page. First, it has arbitrary inclusion criteria (characters with up to two appearances? why not 3? or 1?). Second is the arbitrary and potentially confusing usage of the term "guest" in the title. Third and least important is the fact that it's horribly out-of-date. I'd like to note here that as per Talk:Main characters, the page Recurring characters has been overhauled and includes all characters with 2 or more appearances. Guest characters really doesn't have a point. There are only 2 reasons I can imagine why someone would want to keep this. First, it has a large edit history and was created in the wiki's first month. My response to this is seen in this Wikipedia reply (in summary, too bad, that's a non sequitur argument). Second, someone might think this would be a decent starting point if someone wanted to create a "one-episode-only" characters page; one could conceivably just move the page and shave off the 2x-appearance characters. This is a bad idea, however, as the page in its current state wouldn't even suffice as a skeleton for such an effort. Plus, a "one-shot characters" page is a horrific idea to begin with in my opinion. I say delete. 14:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC) : Agreed. I say delete. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 18:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC) :: Done. That page was like a 3-year-4-month-old bloated tick on the wiki. Lol! 04:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)